ksl@hou2e.UUCP (a hacker) (06/19/86)
steve@umcp-cs.UUCP (Steve D. Miller), and others write, in different words (:-), similar comments: >In article <303@sfsup.UUCP> jerry@sfsup.UUCP (Jerry Theisen) writes: >>* Thanks for mentioning us to your competition. Maybe the next time >> AT&T is in the market for any Tektronix equipment, we'll talk to your >> competition first. Since we do buy Tektronix equipment (my own dept. >> purchased some very expensive equipment from your company), I think we >> at least deserve the common courtesy from you not to degrade our >> equipment on a public network. Your stuff doesn't always work either. > > So what you're saying is that if someone has major problems with a >set of machines (like the 6300+), they shouldn't tell/warn others because >they might offend someone's delicate sensibilities. Such an opinion >is ludicrous. > > The original article indicated to me that the poster had experienced >major problems with the 6300+...problems so bad that they rendered the >equipment effectively unusable. If so, they were *right* to tell >everyone so that others could avoid the same problem (or at least have >some more information upon which to base an intelligent decision). >If others disagree, then let's see some glowing praise ("we at FooBar >Labs have 17,682 6300+s and have never had a problem with them"), not >some ineffectual argument about how "we bought a lot of your machines >so you should be nice and not mention the problems you had with >ours." If you've had legitimate problems with your Tektronix equipment, >then you should have said something earlier; as far as I'm concerned, >though, you've just blown your credibility. > > If you're going to disagree, use some facts in your arguments, not >just a lot of semantic noise. That's a concept...maybe the bus noise >was semantic (not electrical) in nature! > > I should note in passing that I'm totally unfamiliar with either >sets of equipment mentioned in this discussion; I'm not debating the >virtues or flaws of anyone's equipment, just their means of discussing >it. > > It won't surprise me if I'm flamed for posting this...and since >it seems to me that people who behave like this are more likely to >try to take my views as representing those of my employer, I feel >it necessary (and I do *not* feel so when engaged in rational discourse >at both ends of the conversation) to state that the views here are >mine, not those of the University of Maryland, Captain America, or >Timmy the Wonder Dog. Hand me my asbestos suit... > > -Steve I'm not going to flame others who wrote articles such as these, but rather try to reason it out... In case all of you failed to read the top posting, you will realize that the author, who is an AT&T employee, mentions about Tektronix not "degrading" our products. But, most of you took degrading as to mean the entire posting. Most of you failed to realize that he meant ONLY the part concerning suggesting the AT&T PC 6300+ only to the competitor. Why don't you take some time during this brief intermission to go and reread that paragraph? Also, the idea that the AT&T PC 6300+ is not a good machine simply because ONE person at Tektronix says that he had problems is no reason to mean that it's bad. Here, we have 3 totally problem-free AT&T PC 6300+s, and I have, at home, an AT&T PC 6300+ with color monitor, hard disk, 1.2 MB floppy, DEB, 1Mb RAM, UNIX, OS Merge, AT&T Mouse, and MS-DOS. No problems at all. In the articles arguing the point, you will realize that ONE, and only one article mentioned failing PC 6300+s. This is no reason that PC 6300+s should then be called a lousy machine. From a seperate article... A person wrote that the ITT and AT&T were both made by Olivetti. This is not true. ITT makes their own PC. Xerox's PC is made by Olivetti. hou2e!ksl